Sandeep vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 6527 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7638 of 2020
 
Applicant :- Sandeep
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard Sri R.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime 104/20, under Sections 498A/304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Lalliya, District Balrampur.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and no specific role has been assigned against the applicant for demand of Car in the dowry. A general allegation of demand of Car has been leveled against all the other co-accused, who are named in the F.I.R.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the prosecution story, as narrated in the F.I.R. it is alleged that the applicant along with his father, brother and sister has done to death the daughter of the informant, namely, Pratibha for want of dowry on 23.05.2020 at 9.20 p.m.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the marriage of the applicant and the deceased took place seven years back, but in the First Information Report it was wrongly mentioned that it took place on 27.04.2015. The F.I.R. was lodged on 24.05.2020 at 10.15 hours and no proper explanation regarding delay has been given.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 24.05.2020 and according to the inquest report, the informant as well as other family members of the applicant were present at the time of inquest. He further submits that the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 24.05.2020 and according to the post-mortem examination report, no injury was found on the person of the deceased and in order to ascertain the cause of death, the visera was preserved. The visera report was also available on record and the same was filed as Annexure S.CA.-1 and as per visera report, the deceased consumed Organophosphate insecticides poison, which was the cause of the death of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the statement of the informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has repeated the same version as submitted in the F.I.R.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that information regarding the death of the deceased was given by the father of the applicant to the brother of the deceased himself. As per allegation in the F.I.R., the informant has stated that the applicant along with co-accused had beaten the deceased, which finally caused death, but in the post-mortem no external or internal injury was found on the person of the deceased and cause of death is consumption of Organophosphate insecticides poison.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that statement of one independent witness, namely, Jai Chand was also recorded, who has stated that deceased was taken to the hospital on 23.05.2020 at 8.00 p.m. (night) by his Bolero Car No. UP47-L 4680 by the applicant and his family members.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the marriage of the applicant with deceased was a love marriage and was without any demand of dowry and due to wedlock of above marriage, one female child was born and on the date of incident she was 15 months old and is living with mother of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the relation between the applicant and the deceased, who is the wife of the applicant, was cordial, but she was a short tempered lady and always insisted the applicant to live separately and on the date of incident, she took Organophosphate insecticides poison due to some mental pressure, for which the applicant has no concerned at all.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the entire prosecution story was lodged only with the intention to falsely implicate the applicant and his entire family regarding the death of the deceased, who is the wife, on the allegation of demand of Car in the dowry, whereas no such demand was ever made by the applicant or his any family members. The marriage was an old marriage and if any demand was made, that was made within the shortest period of the marriage, so the story as narrated in the F.I.R. appears to be improbable.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as the general allegation has been leveled against all the co-accused in the F.I.R. regarding demand of dowry and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant regarding demand of Car in the dowry, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant is the person, who caused the death to the deceased and as per the post-mortem, the cause of death is consumption of Organophosphate insecticides poison. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on a general allegation the other co-accused, namely, Durga Prasad Tiwari, father of the applicant and Sanjay Tiwari, elder brother of the applicant and Sonam Tiwari the sister of the applicant were already granted bail by this Hon'ble Court, who are named in the F.I.R, vide order dated 10.05.2021 passed in Bail Application No. 4608 of 2021 and 15.04.2021 passed in Bail Application No. 4340 of 2021 and one Pushpa Devi-sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.03.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3185 of 2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused who have already been granted bail on similar allegation and no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused including the present applicant, therefore the case of the applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused, therefore the bail application of the applicant may also be considered sympathetically and the applicant may also be released on bail by this Hon'ble Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 07.06.2020 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

Learned counsel for the revisionist has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 07.06.2020 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in a heinous crime but did not dispute this fact that other co-accused, who were named in the F.I.R. have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering that as per allegation in the F.I.R., the informant has stated that the applicant along with co-accused had beaten the deceased, which finally caused death, but in the post-mortem no external or internal injury was found on the person of the deceased and cause of death is consumption of Organophosphate insecticides poison and there is no specific allegation against the applicant regarding demand of dowry and a general allegation has been levelled against all the co-accused and considering that the co-accused, who were involved in the alleged incident have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court and the applicant has already undergone substantial period of detention and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and the view taken by the Apex Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Sandeep involved in Case Crime 104/20, under Sections 498A/304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Lalliya, District Balrampur be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(6) The applicant shall remain present, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

Order Date :- 12.7.2022

Arvind